The Instigator
whatledge
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
vivalayeo
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Death Penalty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,645 times Debate No: 12732
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

whatledge

Pro

~ Intro & Definitions ~

This debate will be focused on whether or not the Death Penalty should be legal.

Death Penalty - A sentence of punishment by execution.

http://www.answers.com...

My arguments will be given in Round 2. My opponent can feel free to argue in Round 1, if (s)he chooses to.

I look forward to a good debate.
vivalayeo

Con

To keep thing's balanced I will refute my opponent's claim's in the next round and put forward my argument. Good luck! Should be an interesting debate. I've been pondering this issue for quite some time, and have changed my mind on it recently, having been Pro before.

I look forward to round 2. If there is any particular structure, or any key area's you wish to address, just state so when posting round 2. All the best.
Debate Round No. 1
whatledge

Pro

I thank vivalayeo for accepting the debate.

:: Moral ::

"Treat others the way you want to be treated." These words of wisdom, I believe, are what best represents and advocates justice, fairness, and equality. This doesn't mean I necessarily appeal to Hammurabi's code, but something remotely similar. I believe morality should work vice versa, those who do not respect one's human rights, does not deserve human rights themselves. Those who deny another person's right to life, does not deserve the right to live, respectively.

:: Cost ::

The costs to keep an individual imprisoned for life versus the cost to put someone to death, which is more expensive? Surprisingly, the cost to put someone to death is actually more costly than imprisoning them for life (In most cases).

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

However, this does not mean that putting someone imprisoned for life is more practical than to have them executed. This simply means that we need to amend the process, so that it does not cost millions of dollars to put a criminal on the death row.

:: Life Imprisonment ::

To both the innocent and the guilty, life imprisonment is something that is undesirable. However, how bad is it, really? For starters, prisoners get their 3 meals. These are 3 meals that could have been given to a starving child in Africa. Prisoners have a doctor, who maintains their health. They also can shower and maintain hygiene. They can watch TV, lift weights, and socialize. Of course, there are the cons, but for committing a crime, you are given all these pros until you die. What about those who are innocent, those that aren't given their 3 meals, their shower, and their doctor? If their crime is so severe that they are given life imprisonment, spending the rest of their life in a cage, wouldn't the resources be better spent on someone who is innocent and merely deprived?

I would like to finish Round one with a quote by Immanuel Kant. "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death."

I look forward to my opponent's response.
vivalayeo

Con

Thank's to Pro for posting his argument so quickly. There are part's to your argument that make sense, and other's that I find, conflict with my own view's. I believe too, that no-one has the right to take a life, even an institution. I believe that although an eye for an eye is good in theory, it present's problem's in practice. I also believe that, a death sentence is an easy way out, whereas life imprisonment is long, arduous and will give the prisoner me to reflect on what they did wrong and repent.

Your comment's about the prison system being too relaxed are interesting. I too hold that belief, and that convict's while in prison should be given minimal comfort's. I feel is outside the realm or scope of our debate, so if you want to include, I would be glad to, or if you wish to start another debate on 'How and Why Prison need's to be tougher' etc. that's fine too.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Morality

You state that it is best to 'Treat other's like you would want to be treated yourself' which is a good philosophy when it come's to your everyday dealing's with other people, however, I think it take's a better person to forgive, rather than to advocate an 'eye for an eye'. One example really spring's to mind here. Saddam Hussein, who was executed shortly after being interned by the allies in Iraq. To be honest, when I watched the video, I felt a pang of sympathy, regardless of what he had done, no-one deserve's death. That does not mean that they should not suffer the consequence's. If I will judge, I would have setenced him to life in prison with little to no luxuries, and placed in solitary confinement so that his thought's would devour him. Somehow I don't think he fully learned to regret what he had done, because he wasn't given the chance to mull over the atrocities he committed.

Would you not agree that by condemning someone to death, you have their blood on your hand's? I know I would, because as (forgive the reference but it is relevant) Gandalf in Lord of the Ring's stated:

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

http://www.quotesdaddy.com...

This saying, I believe unleashes a landslide of truth. We are all human being's regardless, only our own life is in our hand's. We can never know, if he actually would have repented for his crime's.

Another issue in term's of morality jump's to mind when considering the death penalty. What if we are wrong? There have been countless case's of people being falsely imprisoned, havng been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or having been set up etc. In prison these people have the right to appeal and hopefully have their name's cleared of the crime they didn't commit. If someone is sentenced to death, they don't have that luxury, which seem's to me, to be a frightening ordeal. One which I would not want to find myself in. In the following source we find that, of the people sentenced to death post 1973, atleast 2.3% of them were falsely accused. That add's up to a lot in my book.

A third issue I find with the death penalty, is that, no institution should given the right to take someone's life. Especially since we know that institution's can be easily corrupted. In my opinion, no-one, absolutely, no-one should have the right to another's life. That is too much responsibility for anyone.

http://www.offthekuff.com...
______________________________________________________________________
Cost

You stated that it cost's less to imprison someone for life than it is to execute them, which I find is a compelling reason not to use the death penalty. You say that there should be alteration's and change's made to reverse this, but I think I have proved that, morally, that is not necessary. It even state's in this source that in New Jersey alone, the Death penalty has cost tax payer's 253 million dollar's.

You stated at the start of your argument, that the fund's presented to inmate's would be better off going to the needy, and helping those who are below the poverty line make a decent living for themselve's. Well, that is what tax is for. It enable's the government to spend money on increasing the security and way of life for those who contributed. 253 million dollar's, to me, would buy a hell of a lot of meal's for the sick and poor.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
________________________________________________________________________________
Life Imprisonment

"To both the innocent and the guilty, life imprisonment is something that is undesirable. However, how bad is it, really? For starters, prisoners get their 3 meals. These are 3 meals that could have been given to a starving child in Africa. Prisoners have a doctor, who maintains their health. They also can shower and maintain hygiene. They can watch TV, lift weights, and socialize. Of course, there are the cons, but for committing a crime, you are given all these pros until you die. What about those who are innocent, those that aren't given their 3 meals, their shower, and their doctor? If their crime is so severe that they are given life imprisonment, spending the rest of their life in a cage, wouldn't the resources be better spent on someone who is innocent and merely deprived?" -Con

To be honest, prison life is not as bad as it used to be. However, it is still a horrible experience, one, as you would be undesirable for both the 'Guilty and Innocent alike'. Here are some quotation's from actual inmate's:

‘I think it's fair...They tell you you get nothing and plenty
of it when you come in but you can work your way up
and get privileges and you know if you mess about they'll
take them off you, so you know where you stand, and
they warn you about things first' (Prisoner, Holme House)

'The only time you feel safe in here is when you're
locked up in your pad' (Prisoner, Risley).

‘To me, being treated with humanity means being
provided with adequate, reasonably comfortable and
clean accommodation and being acknowledged as a
person with individual needs, desires, concerns,
strengths and weaknesses' (Prisoner, Doncaster).

What you seem to be advocating is that prisoner's regardless of their crime (since you did not specify) should be treated with as little humanity as possible. However, studies show that prisoner's have a higher chance of rehabilitation if they are treated with a little respect. By trying to eradicate the feeling of hatred, people tend to be more co-operative, making managing the Prison easier. That is why prisoner's have some luxuries like a gym and television, because an active mind a healthy mind. For instance, have you ever realised that kid's tend to cause more trouble when they are bored? Growing up in the Northern Ireland I found that when someone is bored, it lead's to anti-social disorder pretty quickly.

In response to your question, yes, I will concede that money would be better spent on the innocent and deprived, in a perfect world. But we don't live in a perfect world, far from it. There will alway's be crime, and therefore there will alway's be prison's.

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk...

I liked your quote by Immanuel Kant, being one of my favourite Philosopher's. So in good spirit's I return the favour with another quotation.

Here's to you as good as you are
Here's to me as bad as I am
But as good as you are
And as bad as I am
I'm as good as you are
As bad as I am. - Irish Proverb
Debate Round No. 2
whatledge

Pro

I thank Con for his timely response.

Note: these arguments are all directed at those who have been sentenced to life without parole.

::Morality::

As I said, I am not necessarily appealing to Hammurabi's code. I do agree that forgiveness is a virtue; however, a man needs not to be alive to be forgiven. As you say, all actions have consequences. If we have the right to take away one's freedom till death, why not their lives? After all, what is life without freedom? I don't see why it is imperative that we let a man live, who have murdered countless lives, just so he can reflect on his actions. What good does that do? He is simply draining resources from society just so we can give him a chance think about what he has done. Like I said, a man who does not respect one's right to live, gives up his own right's to life.

"Would you not agree that by condemning someone to death, you have their blood on your hand's?"

Of course, but I'm sure you will also agree that some deaths are justified. (Love the quote, btw)

"This saying, I believe unleashes a landslide of truth. We are all human being's regardless, only our own life is in our hand's. We can never know, if he actually would have repented for his crime's."

Again, what good does it do to let him repent? It doesn't bring back the dead or is beneficial to the rest of society in any way. Surely, he understands that to murder is wrong morally and is against the law with consequences? And yet despite this should this man choose to murder, and ignore another's right to live, then to what do we owe this man such a right to life?

"One which I would not want to find myself in. In the following source we find that, of the people sentenced to death post 1973, atleast 2.3% of them were falsely accused. That add's up to a lot in my book."

A fishermen on a trip have death rates of "1.07 deaths per 10,000 full-time fishermen"[1] does this mean we should stop fishing? My point is accidents happen. We can't anticipate them, and by the time we do, it's too late. This does not mean we should stop doing things that can lead to taking an innocent man's life. Simply driving can lead to the same result.

http://www.oregonlive.com...[1]

"In my opinion, no-one, absolutely, no-one should have the right to another's life. That is too much responsibility for anyone."

While agreeably, it is a hefty responsibility, I disagree that it is too much responsibility. Furthermore, if we stopped doing things that we deemed were too much responsibility, what would we accomplish? We would always stay in our comfort zone, never advancing. That said, I agree, no one has the right to another's life, until that individual gives up their right to life. As I said before, I believe they give up this right when they deny other's that VERY right.

::Cost::

"You stated that it cost's less to imprison someone for life than it is to execute them, which I find is a compelling reason not to use the death penalty. You say that there should be alteration's and change's made to reverse this, but I think I have proved that, morally, that is not necessary. "

And I disagree with you in terms of morality, though you advocate a reasonable one. So as long the death penalty remains, we should simply seek to make it cost effective, like most things. For instance, the trial of 9/11 could very well cost more than 400 million[2]. Not very cost effective at all.

http://abcnews.go.com...[2]

However, "Death penalty trials should be more cost effective" is another debate topic. Perhaps we could do such a debate in the future.

::Life Imprisonment::

"What you seem to be advocating is that prisoner's regardless of their crime (since you did not specify) should be treated with as little humanity as possible."

If they committed such a crime that enables them to be in prison for life, then I am not advocating that they be treated with as little humanity as possible, I ask that they accept the consequence for their crimes and die with dignity.

"However, studies show that prisoner's have a higher chance of rehabilitation if they are treated with a little respect."

What is the point of rehabilitating someone who is going to be in a cage for the rest of his/her life?

"By trying to eradicate the feeling of hatred, people tend to be more co-operative, making managing the Prison easier. That is why prisoner's have some luxuries like a gym and television, because an active mind a healthy mind. For instance, have you ever realised that kid's tend to cause more trouble when they are bored? Growing up in the Northern Ireland I found that when someone is bored, it lead's to anti-social disorder pretty quickly."

Simply said, these prisoners, who are to be imprisoned for life, need televisions and gyms because they'll be bored, and being bored leads to trouble. Dead people can't be bored.

"In response to your question, yes, I will concede that money would be better spent on the innocent and deprived, in a perfect world."

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be criminals or deprived people.

"But we don't live in a perfect world, far from it. There will alway's be crime, and therefore there will alway's be prison's."

I agree, but that's no reason to no strive for perfection. If there is error, we must seek to correct it. My problem, with prison as a permanent resident for prisoners till death, is because it is both impractical and in my view unjust. And the above are my reasons.

Again, I thank Con for his excellent responses. And look forward to the next round.
vivalayeo

Con

Thank's to my opponent for responding quickly, and for the easy to read, well structured rational response. Now that we are both of the understanding that we are talking about people who have been issued a life sentence (without parole) and not the general prison population, I will begin my rebuttal.

____________________________________________________________________________
Morality

"As I said, I am not necessarily appealing to Hammurabi's code. I do agree that forgiveness is a virtue; however, a man needs not to be alive to be forgiven. As you say, all actions have consequences. If we have the right to take away one's freedom till death, why not their lives? After all, what is life without freedom? I don't see why it is imperative that we let a man live, who have murdered countless lives, just so he can reflect on his actions. What good does that do? He is simply draining resources from society just so we can give him a chance think about what he has done. Like I said, a man who does not respect one's right to live, gives up his own right's to life."

The underlying point, is that I see death as an easy way out. By letting someone live in a confined space for the rest of their life, they will have to deal with what they have done. This give's them a chance to turn themselve's around, feel remorse for what they have done, and try to make ammend's while being punished for what they did. By leaving someone to their own thought's you get a possible three scenario's:

1: This feel regret, and eventually come to deal with what they have done, and try to make ammend's or better themselve's. Prison's offer program's and work parties in which a prisoner can be given the chance to do some good.

2: They eventually realise what they did was wrong, their own thought's punish them enough, as they have to live with themselve's knowing that all this was brought upon by themselve's. When you spend every hour, of every day with yourself, confined in a room, very few people won't crack. At the end of the day, whether they feel remorse, or to better themselve's, they are still being punished.

3: They feel no remorse, or empathy for those they harmed. They live out the rest of their day's cut of from the world.

Whereas for the death penalty, there is only one outcome. I believe in justice, but I also believe in second chance's no matter how horrible the person is. Call me naive, but I believe there is good in everyone, and sometime's they need the chance to actually show it. But justice is justice, just because someone revolutionise's the way they think, does not mean they have a chance for parole.

"Of course, but I'm sure you will also agree that some deaths are justified"

Please give me an example of when a death is justified. (On a side note, one person's death to save a hundred, like in the movie's, doesn't count in this scenario)

"Again, what good does it do to let him repent? It doesn't bring back the dead or is beneficial to the rest of society in any way. Surely, he understands that to murder is wrong morally and is against the law with consequences? And yet despite this should this man choose to murder, and ignore another's right to live, then to what do we owe this man such a right to life?"

Again, we differ because I advocate justice, with a kind hand, while you advocate justice with a measured hand. I disagree with the point you just made, it is generally accepted that not everyone has such a clear cut, black and white view on morality. To some, they cannot comprehend why it is wrong to murder. And that is the sad truth, some people's perspective's are so warped, so perverted and egotistical that they cannot differeniate between good and evil deed's.

"A fishermen on a trip have death rates of "1.07 deaths per 10,000 full-time fishermen"[1] does this mean we should stop fishing? My point is accidents happen. We can't anticipate them, and by the time we do, it's too late. This does not mean we should stop doing things that can lead to taking an innocent man's life. Simply driving can lead to the same result."

Yes, I concede that accident's do happen, and they ar usually unavoidable, but NOT in a court of law. That number should be 0% not 2.3%. A fisherman being killed in an accident while working is one thing, a innocent person being condemned to death by a jury of their peer's, fo a crime they didn't commit is astronomically different. In justice, there should be no room for error, nevermind accepting it and supposing it is the same as a natural accident.

"While agreeably, it is a hefty responsibility, I disagree that it is too much responsibility. Furthermore, if we stopped doing things that we deemed were too much responsibility, what would we accomplish? We would always stay in our comfort zone, never advancing. That said, I agree, no one has the right to another's life, until that individual gives up their right to life. As I said before, I believe they give up this right when they deny other's that VERY right."

While I agree that when you murder, or worse, you forfeit your right's to freedom, to liberty and to integrity, you do not lose your right to live. As I have explained at the start of this round, dealing justice and second chance's go hand in hand. The person serve's their time (life) but they should alway's be given a chance to better themselve's. If someone murdered a member of my family. I would want that person to spend life in jail, but I would also want them to learn that what they did was wrong, because not everyone that does these thing's know's that.

As in regard to your comment on responsibility, giving an institution or individual the right to another person's life can be easily manipulated and perverted. Staying in your comfort zone and taking chance's are completely different. Risking your own life to do something (rock climbing?) is one thing, as you have the right to prolong end your life whenever you please, however, having the key's to another's mortality is something that no individual can handle responsibly. Human's are not completely rational, we often act on impulse, and we make mistake's. With justice you can't afford to make mistake's.

I won't even go into detail with how it can be dangerous for an institution that has the right to execute prisoner's. E.G.

1: Iran, which is a Muslim theocracy. Sharia law is the governing hand. People can be brutally executed, for crime's that are regarded as minimal in the west. Such as adultery. Infact there is a infamous struggle going on right now for the asylum for Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, who claim's that she was tortured into giving a confession. That is why I don't trust establishment's with the live's of other's.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...

2:Stalinist Russia: The great purge's and show trial's where people were executed left right and center without being given a fair trial. That's how far justice can be warped.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

_________________________________________________________________________
Cost

"And I disagree with you in terms of morality, though you advocate a reasonable one. So as long the death penalty remains, we should simply seek to make it cost effective, like most things. For instance, the trial of 9/11 could very well cost more than 400 million[2]. Not very cost effective at all."

Agreed, that trial's should be made more cost effective, and yes as long as the death penalty is present, it too, should also be made to be more economically efficient, even though we agreed that it is actually cost's less to imprison someone for life, than execute them, but I guess you can't win every battle. Sometime's improvement is better than revolution.

________________________________________________________
Life Imprisonment

I've actually already addressed everything in this section, in the morality part. Although you did reiterate some of my
Debate Round No. 3
whatledge

Pro

Morality

"As I said, I am not necessarily appealing to Hammurabi's code. I do agree that forgiveness is a virtue; however, a man needs not to be alive to be forgiven. As you say, all actions have consequences. If we have the right to take away one's freedom till death, why not their lives? After all, what is life without freedom? I don't see why it is imperative that we let a man live, who have murdered countless lives, just so he can reflect on his actions. What good does that do? He is simply draining resources from society just so we can give him a chance think about what he has done. Like I said, a man who does not respect one's right to live, gives up his own right's to life."

"The underlying point, is that I see death as an easy way out. By letting someone live in a confined space for the rest of their life, they will have to deal with what they have done."

Most prisoners will fight hard against the death penalty, the reason being, the most important thing to them is their own lives. I think taking that away from them is indeed punishment enough.

"1: This feel regret, and eventually come to deal with what they have done, and try to make ammend's or better themselve's. Prison's offer program's and work parties in which a prisoner can be given the chance to do some good."

In fact, most are treated like slaves whether they repent or not. [1]
http://www.globalresearch.ca... [1]

"2: They eventually realise what they did was wrong, their own thought's punish them enough, as they have to live with themselve's knowing that all this was brought upon by themselve's. When you spend every hour, of every day with yourself, confined in a room, very few people won't crack. At the end of the day, whether they feel remorse, or to better themselve's, they are still being punished."

But we have both agreed that prison isn't as bad as it used to be. Prisoners don't spend every hour, of everyday with themselves confined in a room. There is solitary confinement, but they are only used under special circumstances. The effect of solitary confinement shows that it doesn't make them repent, but more so insane and mentally ill. [2] That said, the majority of life sentenced prisoners have their TV, exercise, and social life.

http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]

"3: They feel no remorse, or empathy for those they harmed. They live out the rest of their day's cut of from the world."

The same effect of being cut off from the world can be achieved through death.

"Whereas for the death penalty, there is only one outcome."

Actually, I could list some scenarios myself.

1.They feel no remorse or regret, but dread and despair as death comes its way. You may believe this is an easy way out, I, however, think this is a sufficient punishment. The reason being that most prisoners try to avoid the death sentence. As Kant said, "there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life".
2.Some prisoners do remorse and regret their actions as they are put to death. Many of their last words are words filled with regret.

In both case 1 and 2, the punishment is sufficient, and without ridding them the chance to repent.

"I believe in justice, but I also believe in second chance's no matter how horrible the person is."
I agree, but realistically speaking, that person is going to be locked in a cage for the rest of his life. What good does it do to give him a second chance?

"Please give me an example of when a death is justified. (On a side note, one person's death to save a hundred, like in the movie's, doesn't count in this scenario)"

Some cases of self-defense, and of course as I already described, death does serve as a sufficient punishment.

"I disagree with the point you just made, it is generally accepted that not everyone has such a clear cut, black and white view on morality."

True, but arbitrarily murdering someone being morally offensive is hardly controversial. Such a person who disagrees cannot survive as a member of modern society. Most sane people will know that raping an infant is wrong.

"To some, they cannot comprehend why it is wrong to murder. And that is the sad truth, some people's perspective's are so warped, so perverted and egotistical that they cannot differeniate between good and evil deed's."

Honestly, if a person, raised in modern society, doesn't understand that to murder is wrong or at the very least, against the law, then that person is most likely mentally ill. He should be placed in a mental hospital. But right now, we are talking about criminals who simply do not care for other's rights. Not because they fail to understand common ethics or the law, but because they are selfish.

"Yes, I concede that accident's do happen, and they ar usually unavoidable, but NOT in a court of law. That number should be 0% not 2.3%. A fisherman being killed in an accident while working is one thing, a innocent person being condemned to death by a jury of their peer's, fo a crime they didn't commit is astronomically different. In justice, there should be no room for error, nevermind accepting it and supposing it is the same as a natural accident."

I agree, but accidents do happen. Humans are imperfect, and therefore, are unable to carry out perfect justice. I agree that there is no room for error in justice, but it happens. It's reality. Sad but true. However, we shouldn't stop trying to carry out justice, in fear of error.

"While I agree that when you murder, or worse, you forfeit your right's to freedom, to liberty and to integrity, you do not lose your right to live."

Take those three things away, and you have yourself a very hollow life. Why not let them accept their transgressions and die with dignity for what they have done?

"If someone murdered a member of my family.I would want that person to spend life in jail, but I would also want them to learn that what they did was wrong, because not everyone that does these thing's know's that."

And some people want the criminal to be put to death, to give them closure. To know that justice has been served.

"As in regard to your comment on responsibility, giving an institution or individual the right to another person's life can be easily manipulated and perverted."

A lot of things can be manipulated and perverted, like the government for example, doesn't mean we should be anarchists. Furthermore, we already DO have an institution that can end a person's life, if it is perverted, I ask my opponent to prove this claim.

"Human's are not completely rational, we often act on impulse, and we make mistake's. With justice you can't afford to make mistake's."
But that's just an ideal, as we both agree, justice indeed has no room for error, and as we both agree, humans is imperfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to enforce justice at all.

"I won't even go into detail with how it can be dangerous for an institution that has the right to execute prisoner's. E.G. 1: Iran, which is a Muslim theocracy. http://www.bbc.co.uk...... 2:Stalinist Russia:
http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Both countries aren't democratic at all. They both have a perversely corrupt government, and therefore corrupt justice system. How can we compare a communist and Muslim theocracy to democracy? The three are completely different systems of government. Both Iran and Stalinist Russia do not appeal to American Justice System at all. The only similarity is that the three allow the death penalty. We don't see people being brutally executed in America as in Iran. We don't see the "great purge" in America as we do in Stalinist Russia. The reason is because America has a constitution and a Bill of Rights that we adhere to.

I look forward to my opponent's conclusions in the next round.
vivalayeo

Con

Ah, I've have not been looking forward to adhering to the last round of this debate. I've found this argument, interesting, stimulating, civil and in good jest. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and I hope we debate sometime in the near future. Perhap's on the some of the issue's that could not be addressed in this debate. Good luck and my the best man win.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Morality

"Most prisoners will fight hard against the death penalty, the reason being, the most important thing to them is their own lives. I think taking that away from them is indeed punishment enough."

I disagree with this statement, I cannot imagine that everyone, whether sane or insane, has repented and regretted their crime before being executed. There are those who are proud in the pain of other's. Only time alone, and in a harsh environment can really break someone's spirit, make them give up the tough guy/remorseless facade and actually accept that what they did was horrific.

"In fact, most are treated like slaves whether they repent or not. [1]"

"But we have both agreed that prison isn't as bad as it used to be. Prisoners don't spend every hour, of everyday with themselves confined in a room. There is solitary confinement, but they are only used under special circumstances. The effect of solitary confinement shows that it doesn't make them repent, but more so insane and mentally ill. [2] That said, the majority of life sentenced prisoners have their TV, exercise, and social life."

Yes, I concede that prison is not as bad as it used to be, now that human right's are acknowleged and prisoner's are treated with a little respect. However, as you stated, they are still treated like slave's, only with a bit more respect. Prison's provide these ammenities to keep inmate's occupied, as as I have proved in a previous round, an inactive mind is an anti-social one.

However, it is not the prison instution that make's life almost unbearable, it is fellow inmate's. I doubt I need to prove that fellow prisoner's can be violent, almost murderous and especially in America there is a high tendacy for rape, which to me, would be one of the worst feature's of being virtually without protection behind bar's. Not to mention that gang culture's are affluent in prison. This to me is proper punishment, as prison to me, is more undesirable than death. It is this horrible treatment, fear and misery that will make convict's feel remorse and regret for their crime's. In death you don't get that same chance, as I have already argued for.

http://www.prisontalk.com...

"I agree, but accidents do happen. Humans are imperfect, and therefore, are unable to carry out perfect justice. I agree that there is no room for error in justice, but it happens. It's reality. Sad but true. However, we shouldn't stop trying to carry out justice, in fear of error."

That is still no excuse to say 'accident's happen' as if it cannot be helped. When you are to be the judge of whether someone live's or die's, there is no excuse for an accidentally wrong verdict.

"And some people want the criminal to be put to death, to give them closure. To know that justice has been served."

"A lot of things can be manipulated and perverted, like the government for example, doesn't mean we should be anarchists. Furthermore, we already DO have an institution that can end a person's life, if it is perverted, I ask my opponent to prove this claim"

Yes, it is true that everything can be perverted, and once again you make ridiculous comparison's. If a government does not abide by the will of the people it will not last long without inforcing a rule of terror. I am not claiming that the institution is corrupt now, or was, in america, but it easily can be, just like it was in the exaple's I used in the previous round's. And yes, death my give some closure for some, but It depend's on how you view justice. Just as our view's on justice are manipulating our debate here.

__________________________________________________________________
Conclusion's:

In conclusion, I Believe that I have shown the audience that comdemning someone to death, does not serve justice, in what we deem to be a fair, and just society. Everyone, no matter, how horrid they are deserve a second chance to repent, feel remorse and better themselve's after committing a heanous crime. That does not mean they should be released, but in prison they may find some inner peace, having been given the time to revolutionise their thinking, and by understanding that what they are being served, is what they deserve.

Everyone can change given a chance, everyone (although this sound's naive) has some good in them somewhere, and I believe 'that prison can really bring that to the surface, and if it doesn't, well it is there own loss. I have also shown that life imprisonment is more practical economically than the death penalty, being significantly cheaper. I find that this debate has been fuelled by my opponent's and I different view on morality and justice, however, I can easily see where we differentiate and where we could reconcile.

Prison is a horrible place, but in my view, death is an easy way out. If you commit horrendous crime's, you should be
prepared to meet horrendous consequence's, not death. I wish to thank my opponent again for this debate, and I wish him all the best in the voting process. Please vote fairly.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
Conduct: CON

1. I find many of PRO's arguments to be personally morally repulsive in that they completely ignore the value to an individual's life and equate it to that individual's utility to society but that they assume that the best way to treat criminals is necessarily the harshest way.

2. PRO's tactics in the debate were completely shady and underhanded and something I wouldn't have put up with had I been CON. The resolution defined in round 1 was "This debate will be focused on whether or not the Death Penalty should be legal." This needs to be the resolution throughout the ENTIRE debate since no one can anticipate how you're going to edit the resolution in future rounds when they're deciding whether to accept.

Despite this, PRO decides to ammend the resolution in round 3 to note, "these arguments are all directed at those who have been sentenced to life without parole" with the sole purpose of this note being to get PRO out of some of CON's best arguments. This happens again in the very last paragraph of PRO's last round when PRO decides to further contextualize the resolution to avoid even more of CON's arguments instead of actually refuting them.

Arguments: CON

Far too many arguments in this round (especially by PRO) just boiled down to "well, I believe X so I disagree with Y". If you're not providing a reason to believe X then I have no reason to disregard Y, so I just ignore this type of argument.

All of PRO's arguments seem to me to be nothing more than reasons why the death penalty ain't all that bad. There aren't any PROactive reasons why the death penalty is good, just "Well, it isn't IMPERMISSIBLE" and "it wouldn't cost TOO MUCH more" and "It's POSSIBLE that they could still repent" etc.

Death penalty costs more than the alternatives, wrongly kills innocent people on occasion, and doesn't allow an individual to repent. There are no benefits outlined that make death penalty worth these costs, so it ought not be legal.
Posted by whatledge 6 years ago
whatledge
No, it merely means that you can forgive dead people.
Posted by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
"a man needs not to be alive to be forgiven."

Shucks, I wish you woulda said something sooner. For YEARS now I've been going around forgiving people without realizing that I have to kill them first.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vivalayeo 6 years ago
vivalayeo
whatledgevivalayeoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by FMA 6 years ago
FMA
whatledgevivalayeoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Nails 6 years ago
Nails
whatledgevivalayeoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04